I dont think there would have been much of a fuss at concerts either had they played them - I didnt suggest there would be. My argument was how MICK would see it. Considering hes suddenly become reluctant to play anything but well known hits, he seems to have a strange perception of his audience in recent times which I personally dont feel is accurate.

To say he wouldnt play them simply because theyre the worst songs hes ever written is a bit of a stretch. they wouldnt be on his album if he thought they were poor (personally I think SNC is a terrible song. Dangerous Beauty on the other hand is a terrific one. Contrary to what you may think, I couldnt give a flying fúck what the message/agenda is - it doesnt affect how I judge the song's quality)

> Also, there was no government censorship of the
> Dixie Chicks.
> Prove it.

uh..why should I? Where did I suggest there was??



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-10 04:31 by Gazza.

I like a lot of music by Springsteen and Fogerty as well as Toby and Nugent, and it has nothing to do with the message or political leanings of any of them. It has to do with whether the music makes me feel good and whether I can have a good time at a show.

I don’t care if it is Tom Cruise, Barbra Streisand, Mel Gibson, Bono, Neil Young, or the Dixie Chicks; if I am paying money to be entertained I don’t want a lot of self righteous preaching. I certainly won’t spend my entertainment dollars on someone simply because they have released a propaganda movie or pass off cheap political bomb throwing as “art”. The above list won’t see a penny of my money. Everyone is free to make their own choices. Artists should be mature enough to realize that and be ready to accept the consequences of their actions.

God help us all if sports figures decide they too have the wisdom to solve the world's problems based only on their celebrity. Frankly, I could care less who Shaq votes for and don't want his views on Iraq at halftime, even if he is smarter and more popular than the Dixie Chicks.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> uh..why should I? Where did I suggest there was??

I should have calrified that, squire.
You haven't. Some have done that on this board. Hence my point.
I agree with you that Mick nowadays has a strange perception
of the audience these days (even the past few years).
I do remember him saying that the "album-oriented rock" audience that
he thinks he's playing for don't like anything out of the genre.
I'm paraphrasing, of course.
I found that remark quite depressing.
Sometimes you do get in a rut with the
"give the people what they want" attitude."

'activism' is not what got them into hot water in the first place. on a british(?) stage they simply said, "we're ashamed that gwb is from texas" or something similar. had they done their homework, they would have said "gwb just likes to pretend he's from texas". leave the dixie chicks alone.

i wish mick would be more political, or at least play more of those live; he's smart, these themes come up in his lyrics. he sure nailed neocon. "invest in brown and root"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-10 05:33 by winter.

The Stones will not be playing neocon for a good reason. It is the worst song and performance they have ever recorded. And I'm not referring to the content. Musically it is just embarrassing. I can see Keith and Charlie wincing at this one!

Steven Wrote:

> God help us all if sports figures decide they too
> have the wisdom to solve the world's problems
> based only on their celebrity. Frankly, I could
> care less who Shaq votes for and don't want his
> views on Iraq at halftime, even if he is smarter
> and more popular than the Dixie Chicks.

I don't know man...you sound a little bit too much like GWB. 'Everybody can have his/her own opinion as long as it's the same as mine'. Scary. And second... god won't help you because there is no such thing as a god, at least that's what I believe. Or wasn't I allowed to say that?

For the rest, I am with Rip This, "Support the Chicks"

behind the smoke and mirrors:
hicks, utimco, and dubya...
the story you're not supposed to know...

from 3.-26-2003;
paul krugman gives but one
example of a certain genre of "businesses doing business"
for your consideration:

"...Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks. When Bush was governor of Texas, Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Co., called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Bush a multimillionaire.

from an article "Music, Money & War: Dixie Chicks vs. Clear Channel"
on 3/29/2003...we see, of all people, the perfect hate-clown radio shill glenn beck leading the charge for some twised and corrupt form of "freedom" in the much heraled "grass roots" campaign...

[www.pww.org]

Glimmer Twin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know man...you sound a little bit too much
> like GWB. 'Everybody can have his/her own opinion
> as long as it's the same as mine'. Scary. And
> second... god won't help you because there is no
> such thing as a god, at least that's what I
> believe. Or wasn't I allowed to say that?
>
> For the rest, I am with Rip This, "Support the
> Chicks"


You can't POSSIBLY be that stupid.No one has EVER said that the Dixies or Bruce Springsteen or whoever can't have an opinion or voice their opinion whenever or whenever they want.Thats what a free country is all about. Unfortunately for the Lefties that freedom also extends to a consumers right to NOT buy a performers record or tickets to a show. That freedom also extends to any radio or television station to NOT broadcast a particular show or play a particular bands song. What part of that don't you understand?

It also confounds me that radicals of all sorts (hiding behind bandanas like women) can take to the streets and raise hell and call the leaders of the free world terrorists etc. and no one complains about that! But God forgive us if conservatives do something as benign as protest some idiot artists comments by benignly not supporting said artist or buying his product! The hypocrisacy in your suggestion that people somehow HAVE to buy Dixie records or attend Dixie shows or even that a radio station HAS to play Dixie songs is ridiculous. If thats how we choose to protest the Dixies then so be it. No one is taking away their right to say whatever they want.

And who EVER said "you can have any opinion you want as long as it's mine". You had it in quotes so I assume you have documentation of who said it and when? Oh...You DON"T? How did I know that? Stick to facts son. It makes for a better argument.

And yes you are allowed to say there is no God. Who did you think would not permit you to say that? Oh, that's right...it's the ISLAMIC nations that would not permit you to say that. They'd cut your head off with a rusty knife for sayng there is no Allah. But it's easy to see how you could confuse them with us.

God help a Leftie

hi duane:
i think it's a little disingenuous to reduce this to the leftie, rightie, blue state, red state thing...while we squabble, rome burns...

and that's part of the plan too...divide and conquer...and confuse...
imho

mostly i say this because many prominent conservative republicans, buckley, george will, and norquist come to mind most immediately...have made definitive statements re: the war & related policies in the Most critical terms...

...and many responsible definitional conservatives of long standing have also spoken out, and very critically, about the foreign policy in question...
and tons of long term and courageous intelligence officers (who have been shamefully scapegoated) and military officers...including 4 & 5 star generals...
guys who know...guys who served...in war after war...their entire adult lifetimes...
these peeps ain't 'lefties"...
and they have also expressed opinions that are not easily dismissed by a quick label and the dreadful hate speech that comes from the fringes on both sides...

including the general populace...in almost unprecedented unfavorable performance ratings...among convservs, libs, south/north whatever...
[www.veteransforamerica.org]

duane, kinky friedman could be your next governor!!!!
willie would then straighten out the whole petro problem between spliffs.

so....i know it's a mighty beegass state, but u ever rock it in Austin?
i am a huge Joe Ely fan, r u into him? know of him?
his live stuff with Butch Hancock on git is thrilling...
some of the best live stuff i've ever heard by anybody...
playing, writing, singing everything...
"me and billy the kid" that kinda stuff...

ok; hang in houston...it's hot in tennessee too...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-10 21:33 by Beelyboy.

Duane in Houston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It also confounds me that radicals of all sorts
> (hiding behind bandanas like women) can take to
> the streets and raise hell and call the leaders of
> the free world terrorists etc. and no one
> complains about that! But God forgive us if
> conservatives do something as benign as protest

1) Did someone here (or the Dixie Chicks) call one of the leaders of the free world a terrorist?
2) If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... I mean... GWB wages his own private war (religious crusade more like it) on foreign soil, makes Powell lie to the UN and makes up all sorts of excuses (lies) to the American people... How come he has not been impeached already?
3) And incidentally, how come the "free world" needs to support terrorist groups on other continents (including Al Qaida...) and install dictators in countries where democratic elections used to be held?

On one hand, I think Steven is partially right: Entertainers do not make good politicians. But... GWB is a nit. We all know he is a nit. The Dixie Chicks felt strongly about this, and they stated the obvious. Judging by the backlash, it was apparently a truth that needed saying.

I'm curious, before he finally resigned, were this many Americans upset with the guys that criticised Nixon?

Finally, I find it strange how many Americans are upset with Iran and their Ayatollah, yet it would be a cold day in hell before an atheist person is elected as POTUS. Religion and politics do not mix well. Let's hope Bush' little crusade ends peacefully.

Rune

Nikkibong, why do you see only the US market? Worldwide the Stones outsell Dixies -i mean as album sellers- and, of course, they are attracting much, much more (miles away) people in their concerts.

If i'm right, the two best selling albums in US, this year, were King and Dixies. In it's first week King's album sold 522,000 copies in USA and only 3,400 (!) in the rest of the planet. During their first week Dixies sold 525,000 in the US and just 61,000 in the rest of the planet. These days USA, with a lot of hip- hop and country monster sellers who are not polular in the rest of the planet, is a separate market much more than it was in the past.

Who are the "Dixies"?

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who are the "Dixies"?

[www.thedickies.com]

dixie chicks and stones both made political statements on recent songs,
no one really cared about the stones but the chicks pissed a lot of people off,
thus the chicks are now more dangerous than the stones lol

Slick wrote:

(a) "dixie chicks and stones both made political statements on recent songs, no one really cared about the stones ..."

Oh yeah ?? "No one"?? Ask Clear Channel Communications! And remember the reactions of some conservative fans on this site...

(b) "but the chicks pissed a lot of people off,
thus the chicks are now more dangerous than the stones lol..."

"Sweet Neo- Con" was just one more statement coming from a liberal side and point of view, after the statements of Tom Morelo, Patti Smith, Lou Reed, REM, Massive Attack, Blur, Green Day, etc, etc. A statement coming from a country - band from Texas, is obviously a different story. Much more nuisance to the "patriotic America". Something like "treason" for the conservatives. That's the big difference.

Aahh, but what about when the Dixie Chicks are in their 60's??!!

I have a quick question.

Why the @#$%& are the Dixie Chicks being discuss on a Rolling Stones board? It just doesn't make sense to me...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-06-11 05:07 by La Mano Nera.

Give "Mick" a "chick" and we will see in 9 month ...........the beginning of a new band......................

satisfaction2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Give "Mick" a "chick" and we will see in 9 month
> ...........the beginning of a new
> band......................


ha yeh the rolling chicks; theodora and jade should have a talk about this.
;-)

or maybe not...insert own lisa marie presley album jokes here...

...but then there's louden wainwright and his kids sings nice...
and tim buckley and his kis sang nice
brian wilson kids and they are a reality show with surgical fat...
...earl scurggs kid is a genuis...
moon unit had her moment...
can u tell i need sleep?

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who are the "Dixies"?

Hm, well I'm a fan of HIGH QUALITY country music (that's not necessarily the artists that sell the most, you know), and I would defend the Dixies right to speak their minds - about the president - and everything else. I know quite a few people, Americans and Europeans, with a balanced view on both Bush and Irak and other matters, who see freedom of speach as one of the most important values in a democracy. And I think I remember the president saying something like " we're gonna give democracy to the people of Irak". Freedom of speach is a human right people ought to have in every nation around the world. We might not like what people say, but we should defend their right to say it, you know. If someone said "the Stones are crap", I'd find them terrilby silly and totally lacking the ability to apreciate great music, but I would defend their right to say it. If one of you should say you're fans of Bush. I'd think you ought to get a better role model, but I'll still say: You have the right to think he's a genious. However - I disagree. Clinton, however - is a brilliant man. And I hope - for the sake of the world - the environment and all of us - that Hillary becomes the next president.

There is an article on CNN.com right now pointing out that Chicks concerts are being cancelled in "red" states in America due to sluggish sales. For those unfamiliar, red states are those that supported Bush or have Republican leanings. Up until a couple of years ago, I thought a red state referred to just a handfull of countries since the wall came down!

WHO

ARE

THE

FRIGGIN'

DIXIES

?????????????????????

BV! Politics!

OK, I think the Dixies and Stones so called criticism is childish. It's so 1968. The main threat today is not GWB or Christianity but Islam and terror. Boring huh? Yup, it is boring. So leave it to people with brains (not Dixies intellectual complex or Micks problems with his own age)

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WHO
>
> ARE
>
> THE
>
> FRIGGIN'
>
> DIXIES
>
> ?????????????????????

There's a link on page 1, post 1. They're an American country band consisting of good-lookin' girls.

I see.

What have they got to do with the Stones?

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What have they got to do with the Stones?

Eh, well, both bands have threads about them on the famous IORR message board.
And...both bands sell CDs and play guitars.

Representatives for both bands have aired heavy critisism against George W. Bush and the war on Irak. Like most Americans. I see the support for Bush is dropping like a STONE... Speaking of today'sthreats. Extremism - whether it's islamic or christian or in any way political - is dangerous. It's dogmas fighting sensibility. But the biggest threat is global warming, the environmental problems that some politicians refuse to take seriously. That's more dangerous than terrorism - since it'll kill us all - no matter belief, ethnic, racial heritage, political views etc. If the politicians used half as much on fighting environmental problems as they use on the so called "war on terror" - I'd be a little more relaxed.

I wouldn't say that Stones have aired heavy critisism against George W. Bush and the war on Iraq.

Jagger has. So much in fact, that Keith was afraid he was going to get kicked out of the country... How's that for a DEMOCRACY?